IDT Reflections: A Great Grand Finale

What a great wrap up to not only this course, but to the educational technology program as a whole. While I realize not everyone who takes this course will have completed all other course work (with the exception of one class) as I have, I found this section of the text to be a nice culmination of the technology tools, affordances, pedagogical practices, and issues I have explored in the program thus far.

Distributed or e-learning environments

Specifically, distributed learning is directly applicable to my experiences in another course as we looked at the difference between distributed cognition and distributed learning along with the affordances that online learning systems have to offer. From both the text in this course and the one in my other course along with the discussions I have had with peers, I have discovered that distributed learning refers to experiences and environments where learning is constructed by a variety of sources including people and tools which can include technology. Distributed cognition, or the shared constructed knowledge, is described as the result of these learning experiences according to the students of Pepperdine University studying learning technology (Distributed Cognition, n.d).

The development of this concept truly changed how I look at the affordances of and purposes for online learning. Before beginning my online graduate studies in educational technology, online learning seemed like a distant practice that was most beneficial when students are unable to attend face-to-face courses. Below is a reflection on my experiences with distributed learning throughout my graduate program, but more recently as a result of the two classes I took this first summer session.

I used to think that online learning could not compete with the benefits of face-to-face learning experiences. Through my graduate studies and a better understanding of distributed cognition and learning from this course, I have a completely different outlook on the affordances that online learning has to offer. I have found that internet tools allow online learning to be just as collaborative as a face-to-face experience and in some cases can afford students a voice who would normally shy away from class discussions. 

Now I think that a blended learning environment has many affordances that face-to-face learning experiences simply cannot offer including the ability to process information and formulate thoughts and arguments on one’s own time as well as the ability to continue the discussion outside the walls of the classroom. Issues are no longer confined to the physical walls of a classroom, but can now carry into students’ personal lives allowing them to make connections and respond virtually as relevant connections occur in their everyday lives. I also now think that integrating both opportunities for online discussion and debate as well as face-to-face collaboration when physically possible offers students the best of both worlds. In many ways, online collaboration tools have moved beyond replacing classroom discussion to enhancing or even redefining it as knowledge can be distributed in a wider context.

Application to Learning goals: I can apply this new paradigm of online learning by selecting tools that are safe and secure for my students while also providing them an online platform for discussion to continue the development of distributed cognition outside the classroom walls and keep the conversation going in between class sessions as I only see my student groups once per week.

Ethical Considerations: As briefly mentioned above, online learning opportunities for elementary students do come with certain considerations for safety and ethical use of information. In distributed learning environments, it is critical for the instructor to also be a part of the conversation by working to help guide the discussion and also holding students accountable to online etiquette practices while being sensitive to the issues that arise in such a diverse group of learners. To achieve this balance, as mentioned in the text, “instructional designers must familiarize themselves with the most effective ways to provide students with learning guidance” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).

Reusable Design or Learning Objects

Although the text claims that learning objects have come to be known more as digital objects used within a framework, I can think of multiple learning objects that have been used over the history of education. In a sense, a learning object defines the very idea of not “reinventing the wheel” each time you work as a designer of instruction. Educators have been utilizing and even piggy backing off the work of others for years, and as we made the shift to digitalization in education these learning objects have become more expansive and shared across a wider spectrum. Many of the digital tools we use for online learning represent examples of learning objects including tools such as Edmodo, PBworks, Google Sites and Classroom, and even smaller product development sites such as Wordle, Glogster, and Google Forms. The list is really endless and continues to grow at a rapid pace.

Application to Learning goals: Learning objects or reusable designs in a digital sense can be integrated into classroom activities in too many ways to even begin to explain. I think the way they support learning is by allowing the students, as opposed to the instructor, a way to design that they weren’t able to before or construct knowledge with more opportunities for creativity and personal expression of knowledge. The best way I can help my students to utilize reusable designs in their learning experiences is not by introducing them to a tool and helping them to get comfortable with it, but rather developing in them the ability to search for digital learning object designs that best suite each learning experience. I have found that the popularity of these digital learning objects come and go so quickly that it isn’t worth helping students feel confident in one tool. I need to push them to be risk takers who are comfortable with learning to use new or improved designs as a normal part of the learning process.

Ethical Considerations: Learning objects afford students to opportunity to be self-expressive in both synthesizing and presenting knowledge. With such a large amount of possibilities, it is the job of the instructional designer to help guide students towards learning objects that best suit the content they are working with. Also, although I did not touch on the benefits of learning objects to instructional designers, there are also important considerations designers must keep in mind when utilizing these tools as well. Designers must ensure that learning objects are student centered and align with best practices and learning theories believed to be most effective.

Networks or Web 2.0 Technologies

Web 2.0 has completely redefined the affordances of the first two technologies mentioned above. While distributed learning and learning objects existed well before the development of the internet, it was the introduction of Web 2.0 and networking technologies that really boosted the capabilities of previously used learning theories, methods and practices in education. As mentioned in the text, Web 2.0 affords “new opportunities for learners to take more control of their learning and access their own customized information, resources, tools and services” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012). As students begin to take control of learning the sphere of influence they have on distributed cognition has grown exponentially as well.

Application to Learning goals: Web 2.0 supports “connectivist and constructivist learning pedagogies” in a way that traditional classroom methods were unable to do before. With the direction of learning in control of the learner, students are able to participate in a wide variety of experiences that accomplish the goal of collaborative, constructive learning and the sharing of knowledge and “achievements” with those all over the world.

Ethical Considerations: Utilizing Web 2.0 tools brings privacy concerns and a person’s digital presence to the forefront. It is important for those designing instruction for minors to keep the Child Internet Protection Act in mind while not hindering the development of online learning communities out of fear. Ethical practices must guide instructors to and instructional designers in the development and delivery of content helping students to also be aware of the impact of their digital footprint.


While ethical considerations need to be openly discussed and considered in the instructional designer community, instructional designers must be careful not to shy away from risks due to not understanding the impact such experiences could have on students. It is our responsibility as instructional designers to seek out the most current ethical beliefs in the field in order to harness the power of these technology tools for the benefit of learning and to provide a wider context of distributed cognition.

References:

Distributed Cognition C113. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2017, from https://mindmaps.wikispaces.com/Distributed Cognition C113#TOP

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Contexts in IDT

Supporting Instructional Design from the Bottom Up

As I read through the chapters for this week, I began to see how we use instructional design in K-12 education as a tool to prepare students to be lifelong learners in each of the future career fields described in the text. The three contexts I chose to evaluate were ones I had personal connections to or experience in, which included business and industry, healthcare education and post-secondary education.

Business and Industry

Education in business and industry immediately caught my attention as a recent initiative in our district involves improving our district’s customer service practices. Our former superintendent who was only with us for a short few years, started this movement by relating our district to a business who delivers a service to customers; students and parents. While this model didn’t seem to be well received in the beginning, I can see some correlations between customer service expectations in business and industry and in elementary and secondary education. In any business, including the business of education, customers often have similar expectations for service including a personalized experience, options, frequent communication, and to be heard as well as responded to appropriately and promptly. Parents, easily expect each of these things as “customers” we serve in elementary education, my current industry. In addition, while students may not expect these behaviors from their experience, there certainly is current research to support the benefits of providing them in instructional design. In order to design individualized experiences that offer an authentic context “to support learning by doing” as mentioned in the text, we must in some ways view students as our customers or clients (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012). Instructional designers in business and industry serve in various roles including that of a sole designer, team member, or external designer/consultant (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012). K-12 education utilizes each of these practices as well in employing teachers as instructional designers, developing design teams including curriculum specialist teams at the administrative level as in my district, and even seeking outside instructional design through consulting services. I would say K-12 education differs in that those assigned to design instruction are almost always content specialists regardless of the instructional designer role they are in, whereas in business and industry, the subject matter expert usually is an internal designer or team member. Overall, while I don’t particularly like calling my work a “business,” I do feel there are many similarities between how we design instructional training opportunities for both teachers who deliver the service and our student/parent customers receiving instruction as a service.

Healthcare Education

As I read through this chapter, I could see how Healthcare Education has set the standard for instructional design and learning methodologies. Just as those employed in the healthcare industry need hands-on experience and interpersonal skills, our students need these skills as twenty-first-century learners who will be tasked with critical thinking and problem solving in future careers as identified by “The Partnership for 21st Century Skills” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012). In addition, Healthcare education has high stakes that influence the necessity of quality instructional design. While the health care field is very broad and includes many entities other than medicine practice, it is highly important to invest in resources that will provide a high level of training and education as well as the continuous need for the evaluation of these practices in relation to scientific discoveries. Healthcare expertise is a matter of practice that improves with experience in problem solving scenarios much like the problem based learning methods we find to be so engaging and successful in the elementary classroom. I was surprised that K-12 instructional design considerations mirror those of health care education so closely.

 

Post-Secondary Education

In my current experiences as a post-secondary student, I have found the curriculum design in this context to be challenging, engaging and motivating. While post-secondary education may not be as broad a context as healthcare, I still find that it covers a wide range of experiences, sub contexts and subject matter, which influence the design of instruction. However, the demands on instructional designers in this field seem to have some common features including the ability to “revise, create, and innovate,” adapt to changes with each new semester and group of students, set aside time for research, and “develop a good rapport with faculty” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012). I face similar challenges in the elementary education world such as the stamina to keep up to date on changing curricula, state expectations, available resources, innovative teaching methods and new technology. The traditional expectations of creating learning experiences and material, while also maintaining the knowledge to serve as a subject matter expert have continue to exist while teachers are also expected to reflect, evaluate, revise and innovate in today’s classrooms all to prepare students for jobs that may not even exist yet. Just as the expectations for post-secondary instructional designers are changing, the pressure on elementary and secondary educators to prepare students for both post-secondary education and a future career is steadily increasing.

Equipping Students with Instructional Design

Overall, I found the skills necessary for IDT in all sectors to include a vast amount of considerations and constraints that seem to continuously evolve as our economy and educational philosophies change. As an elementary educator, I find this to be somewhat stressful as the challenges in each field trickle down to my level of instructional design.

I picture my role as taking on a bottom up approach in trying to equip my students with the thinking processes and problem-solving skills they will need versus filling them with content they may or may not use. A few twenty-first-century skills mentioned in the text that I find crucial for our students are developing a global awareness of the effects their actions have on society; critical, creative, and innovative thinking skills; the ability to seek information from accurate sources and use it for the benefit of solving problems in an ethical manner, collaborative and cooperative teamwork practices, and other life skills including understanding the attributes of an effective leader, adaptability and flexible thinking. In addition to these skills, I have recently found lessons in failure to be invaluable to students who will face problems associated with living in a world that cannot be sustained by current resources. Introducing students to failure at a young age will encourage them to develop a sense of grit as they work to solve problems that seem impossible. While this may seem like a long list of “perfect world” desires, these attributes will encourage students to become productive, contributing members of our future society. Therefore, instructional design at the elementary level should include a variety of opportunities that focus on building these skills in students while still incorporating the content expected by the state. This will be a daunting task, and while our countries methods for educating children have often been criticized, I do think we are headed in the right direction; slowly but surely developing well rounded citizens who are capable of much more than simply scoring well on tests.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Evaluation as a Forethought

 “Evaluation is the process of determining the merit, worth, and value of things, and evaluations are the products of that process” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).

Models for Evaluation

In our text, evaluation includes the aspects of “merit, worth and value,” three words that often vary between contexts and the opinions of others.  For the purposes of taking a deeper look into evaluating a program or process, we will assume the definitions described in the book for each of these terms; merit meaning “intrinsic value,” worth meaning “market value,” and value being the concept of making judgement that is valuable in the progression and success of a corporation or business as a whole.  

The text goes on to describe several models for evaluating instructional design including the Context, Input, Process Prodcut (CIPP) model, Rossi’s Five Domain Evaluation Model and Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model.  In addition to these models explained in the text, I found Kaufman’s Model of Learning Evaluation, based on Kirkpatrick’s previously established model, and Anderson’s Value of Learning Model to be applicable in effectively evaluating the overall success of an innovation or program.  

Kaufman's Model of Learning Evaluation 
As mentioned above, Kaufman’s Model of Learning Evaluation builds on the ideas presented in Kirkpatrick’s model in the text.  Kirkpatrick’s model revolves around four levels of evaluation which include learner’s reactions to the experiences (Level 1: Reaction), the actual learning and the consequential changes that occur (Level 2: Learning), behavior changes that occur while performing the job (Level 3: Behavior), and the effect of the learning and subsequent changes on the organization (Level 4: Results) (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  In addition, Kaufman’s model emphasizes the value of these four steps while also introducing some improvements to this process that include splitting Level 1: Reaction into two elements; input and process.  He further emphasizes that evaluating materials separate from the process might help to identify any problem areas or a shortage of appropriate resources sooner in the process.  In return, this affords early detection leading to corrective action to be taken early in the process. The design of these two levels considers both delivery and impact, which contradicts Kirkpatrick’s earlier model as it combines the evaluation of these two elements.  Secondly, Kaufman adds a fifth level to look at benefits to society and clients. While evaluating clients, customers or consumers of the product/innovation/program proves beneficial, looking at the effect on society can be challenging, cumbersome and result in insufficient data.  Overall, both Kirkpatrick’s and Kaufman’s models were designed to evaluate more formal approaches to instruction delivery and training.  To help you better visualize the formality of Kaufman’s model, I have provided a list of the steps below and how they correlate to Kirkpatrick’s original model.

Downes, Andrew (2017).  Kaufman Kirkpatrick Explanation.  Learning Evaluation Theory:     Kaufmann’s Five Levels of Evaluation.  Franklin, TN: WatershedLRS.com.

Anderson's Value of Learning Model
Another alternative model to those presented in the text, Anderson’s Value of Learning Model, also emphasizes the evaluation of the impact on the organization as mentioned in both Kirkpatrick and Kaufman’s levels.  Anderson’s model consists of a three-stage evaluation cycle, as outlined below, and is intended to be applied at the organizational level as it focuses on the alignment of the learning program’s goals the goals of the organization. Finally, the Anderson model is intended to evaluate learning strategies over individual programs.  Although, by design, this model is intentionally high level and flexible as used at the organizational level, this can also be seen as a limitation because it doesn’t afford practical application or specific, in-depth evaluations.

Anderson’s Value of Learning Model Phases:

1. Determine current alignment against strategic priorities.
2. Use a range of methods (learning function, return on expectation, return on investment, and     benchmark/capacity measures) to assess and evaluate the contribution of learning.
3. Establish the most relevant approaches for your organization.

Downes, Andrew (2017).  Kaufman Kirkpatrick Explanation.  Learning Evaluation Theory: Anderson’s Value of Learning Model.  Franklin, TN: WatershedLRS.com.

Evaluating Instruction with Kaufman and Anderson
Although Kaufman’s and Andersons models are designed to be formal evaluation tools implemented at the organizational level, I found that they still correlate to current professional development program practices. To apply these models in evaluating my own instruction, as a professional development presenter, I would integrate the following steps for evaluating my instruction:

1. Identify intended outcomes and Evaluate how they align to district goals and initiatives.
2. Determine which resources are appropriate for reaching the intended goal or outcome, locate these resources and coordinate access to them, as well as anticipate possible barriers, limitations and problems that might present themselves when utilizing these selected resources.
3. Use formative assessment to discover the effectiveness and efficiency of the learning experience within the organization by developing an online platform for sharing developed products beyond the professional development experience.
4. Identify organizational payoffs by surveying participants on the ease of use of the new ideas presented, how they align to curriculum requirements and whether or not they were utilized in the classroom following the learning experience. 
5. Provide an opportunity for participants to predict and link new methods presented to the impact they will have on society based on the learning that will be transferred to students.  

I found these models applicable to instruction delivered as professional development as they are geared towards evaluation at the organizational level.  In applying these models to professional development delivery, I realized that I often try to align instruction to new district initiatives, however, evaluating the micro and macro effects on our district as an organization could use more development.

More Evaluation Considerations

What I found in evaluating the models mentioned above is they don’t necessarily include unintended outcomes.  This is where I feel that Return on Investment (ROI) might fail to show success.  Evaluations need to incorporate opportunities for learners to share consequences and outcomes that they constructed as a result of the learning experience that may not have been anticipated by the instructor or professional development presenter in the case mentioned above.  In school districts, I often find that resources are allocated with ROI in mind, yet accountability is not implemented to ensure such a return comes to fruition.  A good example of this occurs when our district sends various staff members to out of district conferences and training.  The district either selects or leaves it to the principals to select participants that will get the most out of the content presented, and in return, bring back new methods and strategies to the other staff members on the campus.  The evaluation process fails to hold these staff members accountable for the greatest ROI, which is to provide new learning experiences across the campus or district through professional development.

Human Performance

As I thought about the scenario above, and the lack of a formal accountability process, I couldn’t help but also think of the informal learning that results from these conferences for years to come.  Informal learning, favored by constructivists like myself, sees the power in authentic learning that occurs at the initiative and in the context of the job.  Teachers and support staff work together regularly to enhance and enrich the learning process by constantly tweaking their instructional designs.  While this method of learning may be hard to measure, it is immediate, relevant and often easier to attend than formal training.  Informal learning place instructors in the role of coaches and experts, providing mentors to make learning more meaningful and personal.  It also shifts the responsibility of learning onto the learners (teachers) and inspires them to seek out information to improve instructional design.  Technology makes this shift more feasible, continuous and collaborative.  Furthermore, as new learning begins to take root, I do feel it is important to develop Knowledge Management systems to make this learning available to all.  Technology redefines KM as it provides editable platforms for the storage of knowledge while also allowing the knowledge to evolve over time.  On another note, I found that Performance Support Systems, while time consuming, can be useful in some cases by providing a structure of support accessible to all.  However, they do not hold the same qualities of being updated easily, and can quickly become outdated and irrelevant.  Overall, the use of informal learning practices and knowledge management systems when appropriate align best with the constructivist learning theory I find most teachers believe to be best.

Downes, A. (2017). Learning Evaluation Theory: Kaufman’s Five Levels of Evaluation. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from https://www.watershedlrs.com/hubfs/CO/Kaufman_White_Paper/Learning_Evaluation_Kaufman_.pdf

Downes, A. (2017). Learning Evaluation Theory: Anderson's Value of Learning Model. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from https://www.watershedlrs.com/hubfs/CO/Anderson_White_Paper/Learning_Evaluation_Anderson.pdf

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Knowing what we Know

What I have come to know…

In studying what knowledge is and how we attain it (epistemology), we, as educators have developed theories for approaching learning.  If epistemology is comprised of what we believe about knowledge and how it is acquired, then learning theories or models represent the path we believe will result in the highest levels of attainment.  These theories become the frameworks for how we will administer instruction to encourage learning.  I use the term encourage versus ensure as my personal epistemology aligns with a contextual view of knowledge acquisition and the belief that learning lies in the hands of the beholder; the learner.  We can design instruction based on best practices that are supported by research and evidence, but ultimately, we cannot force, nor ensure learning.  Furthermore, I found an immediate connection to this understanding of both epistemology and learning theories as I worked on writing curriculum with colleagues this week for our gifted program.  We started with what we believed to be true of knowledge and how it is attained, which shaped our beliefs that the highest levels of learning and thinking happen when inquiry based methods are used in instruction.  We worked to build frameworks that designated what would be taught, how it would be presented to learners by providing students with an initial problem to solve, and what instructional resources could be used to support and guide students towards this goal.

Where do I stand ?

As mentioned earlier, I take a contextualist stance on the circumstantial dependence of knowledge, and I often find myself constructing meaning by attempting to find relevance and purpose for learning in relation to the situation it occurs in.  As an example, I am often not afraid to question or challenge knowledge that conflicts with my own interpretation of a situation.  In order to learn, I have to understand how the learning fits into the bigger picture (the why or how) before accepting knowledge as truth.  Our district gifted and talented coordinator’s view on knowledge is more characteristic of a positivist in that knowledge is objective; truth is truth in any context or situation.

Once accepted as truth, even the most challenging, insightful questions will not cause her to waiver or consider another perspective.  I respect her knowledge of content, and know that she brings a wealth of experience and enthusiasm to our group of gifted teachers.  However, her stance seems to contrast the very pedagogical practices she accepts as truth.  I struggled to place her into one of the categories discussed in this week’s reflection, because she pushes us to implement problem based learning, exploration, differentiated experiences and unique approaches to learning, yet preaches on consistency across all of our classrooms.  We have frequently debated how we can have autonomy in serving our gifted students and allow them to pursue deeper learning they don’t often have time for in the classroom while also maintaining consistency in teaching the same lessons and content in our classrooms located on different campuses that serve different students.  We seem to wrestle each year with how to marry these two concepts, but I can see how operating on a team of only contextualists can produce a vague or “fuzzy” approach as mentioned in this week’s readings (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  Ultimately, I do believe that her positivist views challenge our own epistemology and encourage us to further develop our theories or models of learning.

 Implications of Contextualism

While contextualism generally tends to employ constructivist methods for learning, it is important to note that in some situations or contexts, a contextualist may find it necessary to approach learning with behaviorist methods specifically when outcomes can be controlled or predicted.  Contextualism, like its action based partner, constructivism, both leave room for a vague, generalized view of knowledge and learning.  In recent years, this view of knowledge acquisition through construction has been challenged as mentioned in the text (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  However, without the introduction of a new approach or one that substantially differs from the generally characterized view of constructing knowledge through experience, thought process and social/emotional stimuli, constructivism remains the umbrella that continues to cover the development of new learning theories.  Constructivism as a larger theory that encompasses various models remains relevant primarily because it revolves around a focus of problem solving practices to construct new knowledge.  Where behaviorists cling to absolutes and rules in conjunction with learning, they practice convergent thinking which leaves only one right possible answer.

On the other hand, Constructivists and ultimately Contextualists bring the factor of context into the equation and approach learning with divergent thinking with either a possibility for multiple or unlimited solutions to a problem.   Our society today functions on the development of innovations and many ways to answer a problem or fill a need.  Without the theory of multiple solutions to the simple, every day first world problems we face, our economy wouldn’t nearly be as diverse as it is now.  Creativity and innovation thrive in an environment where convergent thinking is encouraged and problem-solving scenarios inspire challenging work.  I have found in working with gifted students who often make connections I had never considered, that they most often are motivated to act when presented with a problem to solve.  The opportunity to use their creativity in solving these problems motivate them to gather information, construct meaning and take responsibility for their own learning.

References:

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.

Defining the IDT Field

DEFINING THE IDT FIELD

The Quest to Define Instructional Technology

Instructional Technology has been molded into many different representations of instructional based ideas. Theorists and educational gurus mimicked a game of ping pong as they tossed this term back and forth calling it a noun that encompasses the tools we use for instruction to a verb describing the methods we use to solve instructional problems or the steps we follow to present instruction (Reiser, Dempsey, 2012). Out of this game, a new definition has emerged that combines the two ideas of nouns or resources and actions or steps employed in the instructional process and evaluation of learning. Before reading the research on this topic, I would have to admit, I considered instructional technology to be more of a noun than a verb defined by the tools we use for instruction. These tools, while not limited to being digital in nature could include any resource utilized that gives birth to new knowledge in the learning environment. Resources could include people, print, physical objects and even the digital tools we have in our classrooms today. 

Instructional Design in Action
As I reflect on the tools that I and my students have access to, I begin to think about how these tools are used to enhance instruction. Part of my job is to structure learning experiences that deepen or enrich the current curriculum in each grade level K-6 for gifted students. A recent lesson I had the opportunity of transforming involved a study of various countries around the world as assigned by our 6th grade Social Studies teachers. In order to enhance this lesson, I challenged my gifted students to design and develop a civilization of their own who would build the structures within a new country. In the original design of the lesson, students were asked to select a country from an area of the world, research various aspects of the country and report on their findings. Within this new project, students were tasked with developing the methods of survival a civilization would need in an assigned area of the world making this project more aligned with characteristic number 3 from Reiser and Dempsey’s (2012) description of instructional design projects.

Another aspect I changed about the project included grouping students to work in teams just as they would authentically in the development of a new civilization. Civilizations don’t tend to spring up at the hand of one human, therefore, a well-developed civilization would require a “team effort” (Reiser, Dempsey, 2012). Furthermore, bringing in the opinions of others would create more of a challenge for students but improve the quality of the final product. Other components of this project seemed to align nicely with the remaining characteristics of instructional design. For example, outcomes could easily be measured using the structures and systems of a country that students are expected to describe. The project was also very student centered, and left an equitable amount of room for student selection within the process and development of a final product or presentation piece. With the goals clearly defined, students were able to select appropriate media for accomplishing both the research, development and presentation of this project.

The Evolution of Media
While teachers, chalkboards and textbooks were specifically excluded from media in chapter three due to their existence prior to the twentieth century, they do technically qualify as forms of instructional media or “the physical means via which instruction is presented to learners” (Reiser, Dempsey, 2012). Initially, these resources were considered separate from media to establish a hierarchy of reliability with teachers and textbooks being the primary source of instruction and other forms of media filing in behind as merely supplemental tools.

As the advancement and availability of visual and audiovisual media has exploded over the last century, I believe the balance has shifted on who holds the authority in instruction. Technology can now outperform and update faster than humanly possible for teachers and printed materials to compete with requiring teachers to take on the role of facilitator rather than expert. In regard to chalkboards, which I specifically saved for last, I find that the purpose of this form of media still holds relevance to instruction today. Chalkboards have taken on various physical and digital changes through the years, yet still serve as a place to record, problem solve and present information. However, with the evolution of media and instructional design, these tools have afforded learners the added feature of collaboration. In my opinion, this added feature has been the true game changer in the instructional media arena, giving birth to innovations that are the result of many great minds versus just one. Isn’t this the true purpose of instructional design?

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson Education.